I’ve seen this site a lot now on here, and it just looks like another low tier British tabloid that pumps out misleading ragebait content for clicks. From what I saw it’s like the left wing version of the Daily Mail. Why is the information hygiene on Lemmy so poor? Why can’t the community have higher standards on better sources?
Oh shit, did they make false claims in this article?
Or do you just object to their biased reporting? Because then we can exclude everything from AP news (“Israel ‘’‘’‘‘tests’’‘’‘’’ ceasefire”) to fox news.
What a shit take. You’re information hygiene has to be completely cooked to defend tabloids like this. This is an objectively poor source that’s basically just the Daily Mail 2.0 that pumps out clickbait.
This article is reporting on the same thing, but it is so much better:
No, the only people who call information hygiene “bias in favor of Israel” are those who lack elementary levels of critical thinking. Just because you brainlessly accept shitty sources because they feed into your confirmation bias, that doesn’t mean others do. The Canary is an objectively crappy source. They literally spell out in their about page that this site is meant to be activist magazine, not a genuine news source. It lacks credibility, objectivity, and basic journalistic standards. It’s literally a British tabloid that run on click bait, like what are we even doing?
I’ve seen this site a lot now on here, and it just looks like another low tier British tabloid that pumps out misleading ragebait content for clicks. From what I saw it’s like the left wing version of the Daily Mail. Why is the information hygiene on Lemmy so poor? Why can’t the community have higher standards on better sources?
Oh shit, did they make false claims in this article?
Or do you just object to their biased reporting? Because then we can exclude everything from AP news (“Israel ‘’‘’‘‘tests’’‘’‘’’ ceasefire”) to fox news.
What a shit take. You’re information hygiene has to be completely cooked to defend tabloids like this. This is an objectively poor source that’s basically just the Daily Mail 2.0 that pumps out clickbait.
This article is reporting on the same thing, but it is so much better:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp8pz5nm6r8o
Supporting shitty tabloids doesn’t become okay just because they pump out headlines you agree with, the point is the quality.
What you seem to call “information hygiene” most others call “bias in favor of Israel”. Do you earnestly use the term “sterile street” too?
No, the only people who call information hygiene “bias in favor of Israel” are those who lack elementary levels of critical thinking. Just because you brainlessly accept shitty sources because they feed into your confirmation bias, that doesn’t mean others do. The Canary is an objectively crappy source. They literally spell out in their about page that this site is meant to be activist magazine, not a genuine news source. It lacks credibility, objectivity, and basic journalistic standards. It’s literally a British tabloid that run on click bait, like what are we even doing?